It is a different matter for the county and state to question the use and misuse of funds, improper hiring, contracts, etc., but that is a different matter.
It’s prosecutorial misconduct to lie about conflicts of interest and the case is being made that Fani Willis is prosecuting Trump for her own personal and financial benefit.
She appointed her squeeze to the case because she could use him to launder money back to herself.
The point of the case is then the grift. It’s a reason to dismiss the case.
It’s not the office romance. I’m surprised at how easily people are led astray. It that she hired her lover, ignoring those available within her office. Paid a hourly rate and approved hours far beyond normal, and then went on numerous vacations, had the county pay for the love nest etc etc.
Trump was an excuse to keep those money faucets wide open.
“The charges against Trump are wrong but I am troubled by the affair being disqualifying as they were both on the prosecution.”
Troubled? Really?
Is it possible for any of the rest of us to ever attain the heights of concern that you show?
This isn’t a real prosecution , it’s political persecution and we need to use every break we get Replacing Fani will delay the trial thus helping Trump.
That utterly undoes any presumption that the prosecutor looked at the facts and the law, without bias, and determined that it was in the public interest to pursue these charges. Doing what you are told to get license to indulge in corruption is the height of unreasonableness and a gross abuse of the discretion of one's office.
Once you decide to do that, there is no way that any of your decisions can be found to have been carefully reasoned.
In law, there are a few key steps in the exercise of discretion. You must have the authority, you must exercise it, and you must exercise it reasonably. Doing what you are told in return for getting away with corruption is not, actually, exercising your discretion, certainly not reasonably.
Furthermore it creates the presumption that your decisions about whether facts suppor the prosecution rather than ending the prosection, are ignored because your real goal is to continue the prosecution in order to continue you corrupt practices.
So her corrupt practices, her office dalliance and her prosecution of Trump have everything to do with each other.
What makes it a major problem is that you can't have a public employee giving a financial incentive to another person to engage in the prosecution of citizens whose innocence is presumed unless they are convicted. The romantic nature of the relationship isn't the biggest issue here. Imagine if a prosecutor paid bounties to her staff based on the number of people they prosecuted. On its face that is unethical at best and illegal at worst, as it incentivizes the prosecution of innocent people.
The biggest angle to this story that hasn't gotten much attention is that at least one of these prosecutors met with White House lawyers as part of their work on the case. White House lawyers have no business in a state criminal case, which means they are subject to subpoena as witnesses for any of the defendants. Disqualifying these two mutants is the first step to getting THEM listed as witnesses, too.
“An unmarried person commits the offense of fornication when he voluntarily has sexual intercourse with another person and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as for a misdemeanor.”
OCGA Sec. 16-6-18
“A married person commits the offense of adultery when he voluntarily has sexual intercourse with a person other than his spouse and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as for a misdemeanor.”
OCGA Sec. 16-6-19
It is well settled that neither a court of law nor a court of equity will lend its aid to either party to a contract founded upon an illegal or immoral consideration.
Rehak v. Mathis, 239 Ga. 541 (1977)
Can I seems to have hired the Special Prosecutor after their romance began. They have taken multiple vacations together paid for by the special prosecutor. Thus his salary directly benefits his boss.
.
The issue is not the affair, it's the money involved with the affair. Willis paid Wade significantly more than other lawyers involved, including experts. He then paid for expensive trips with her. Wade's wife has already given up receipts paid by Wade for these trips that have Willis' name on them.
It is a boss-subordinate relationship.
These are effectively banned, in all public companies. Family businesses are completely different.
I don’t know of a governmental department that allows a romantic relationship in a boss-subordinate relationship.